Freedom Flotilla 3 sails to Gaza

[montelatici]

Using analysis compiled by belligerents is un helpful. US/UK/Israel/Palestinian and most Muslim sources will not be reliable. Here is a Spanish analysis and Spain has a long history with respect to the law of the sea.


"the actions committed by the Israeli Armed Forces when seizing foreign-flagged ships on international waters ... and when causing the death of some of its passengers, do clearly violate the International Law ... No State whatsoever can arrogate faculties for restricting the freedom of movement of any ship on international waters, much less for storming foreign-flagged ships, exception made of the few exceptions authorized by the International Law (piracy, slave trade, suspicions of fake identifications, etc.). Thus, it is not legitimate to resort to the Maritime War Law concepts of a blocked zone or blocked port, when such a war is inexistent ... In 1988 it was agreed ... the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA) that ... typifies as a crime taking control of a ship by force, or exerting violence over shipped persons, for whatever private or public reason, for whatever economic or terrorist interests.... Israel recently ratified this Convention (it entered into force for Israel on April 2009) ... SUA Article 6.1 establishes as the forceful jurisdiction for sanctioning the illicit actions the same country whose flag carries the ship on which or against which the forceful action has been taken..."

Un il cito internacional Edici n impresa EL PA S

Meh, more hot smelly air coming out of the antisemite:

UN rules that Israeli blockade is legal in blow to failing flotilla

More bad news for the dwindling number of flotilla activists hanging around the ports of Greece. The now completed UN Inquiry on last year’s Gaza flotilla incident aboard the Mavi Marmara found that Israel’s blockade of Hamas-ruled Gaza is legal and the Israeli government owes no apology or reparation to Turkey.

The UN investigative committee, headed by former Prime Minister of New Zealand and internationally renowned jurist, Geoffrey Palmer, actually criticizes Turkey for not doing enough to prevent the flotilla from setting sail and for also providing a somewhat anaemic and lacking investigation into the events of May 2010.
**
Argument is moot!

What time is it? It's bitchslap the IslamoNazi scumbag Monte time!

The Spanish legal opinion did not address the legality of the blockade.

 

[Roudy]

Using analysis compiled by belligerents is un helpful. US/UK/Israel/Palestinian and most Muslim sources will not be reliable. Here is a Spanish analysis and Spain has a long history with respect to the law of the sea.


"the actions committed by the Israeli Armed Forces when seizing foreign-flagged ships on international waters ... and when causing the death of some of its passengers, do clearly violate the International Law ... No State whatsoever can arrogate faculties for restricting the freedom of movement of any ship on international waters, much less for storming foreign-flagged ships, exception made of the few exceptions authorized by the International Law (piracy, slave trade, suspicions of fake identifications, etc.). Thus, it is not legitimate to resort to the Maritime War Law concepts of a blocked zone or blocked port, when such a war is inexistent ... In 1988 it was agreed ... the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA) that ... typifies as a crime taking control of a ship by force, or exerting violence over shipped persons, for whatever private or public reason, for whatever economic or terrorist interests.... Israel recently ratified this Convention (it entered into force for Israel on April 2009) ... SUA Article 6.1 establishes as the forceful jurisdiction for sanctioning the illicit actions the same country whose flag carries the ship on which or against which the forceful action has been taken..."

Un il cito internacional Edici n impresa EL PA S

Meh, more hot smelly air coming out of the antisemite:

UN rules that Israeli blockade is legal in blow to failing flotilla

More bad news for the dwindling number of flotilla activists hanging around the ports of Greece. The now completed UN Inquiry on last year’s Gaza flotilla incident aboard the Mavi Marmara found that Israel’s blockade of Hamas-ruled Gaza is legal and the Israeli government owes no apology or reparation to Turkey.

The UN investigative committee, headed by former Prime Minister of New Zealand and internationally renowned jurist, Geoffrey Palmer, actually criticizes Turkey for not doing enough to prevent the flotilla from setting sail and for also providing a somewhat anaemic and lacking investigation into the events of May 2010.
**
Argument is moot!

What time is it? It's bitchslap the IslamoNazi scumbag Monte time!

The Spanish legal opinion did not address the legality of the blockade.

Hah? You on drugs again?

The UN investigative committee, headed by former Prime Minister of New Zealand and internationally renowned jurist, Geoffrey Palmer, actually criticizes Turkey for not doing enough to prevent the flotilla from setting sail and for also providing a somewhat anaemic and lacking investigation into the events of May 2010.

 

[Roudy]

Report Finds Naval Blockade by Israel Legal

UNITED NATIONS — A long-awaited United Nations review of Israel’s 2010 raid on a Turkish-based flotilla in which nine passengers were killed has found that Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza is both legal and appropriate.

 

[Roudy]

U.N. panel concludes Israel’s armed raid on Gaza flotilla was legal

NEW YORK — A U.N. panel has concluded that Israel’s armed raid on a flotilla carrying Turkish and other foreign activists and humanitarian supplies toward the Gaza Strip last year was legal.

 

[Roudy]

The Legality of the Israeli Naval Blockade of the Gaza Strip

3.2 ISRAEL’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW GOVERNING THE IMPOSITION OF THE NAVAL BLOCKADE
Israel maintains that the naval blockade was properly declared and notified. (213) The naval blockade of the Gaza Strip began on 3 January 2009 and was announced on 6 January 2009. (214) The Naval Blockade Notice stated: “All mariners are advised that as of 03 January 2009, 1700 UTC, Gaza maritime area is closed to all maritime trafic (sic) and is under blockade imposed by Israeli Navy until further notice”(215) and also provided the geographical boundaries of the naval blockade by way of coordinates. (216) It was published on international channels, (217) and on the IDF, Shipping Authority and Ministry of Transport websites. (218) Israel informed all vessels in the Mediterranean Sea about the naval blockade, transmitted the announcement twice daily to vessels located within 300 kilometres of the Israeli coast, and notified states which Israel knew had planned to send ships to the Gaza Strip. (219) Israel asserts that the naval blockade has always been effective as no vessels have been permitted through, (220) and that it has been enforced impartially and without discrimination against the vessels of all states. (221) Israel also maintains that the naval blockade of the Gaza Strip has not prevented access to the ports and coasts of neutral states. (222)


As regards Israel’s humanitarian obligations under the San Remo Manual, the Turkel Report concedes that it is possible that the naval blockade, combined with the Closure Policy, affects the civilian population of the Gaza Strip. (223) However, it finds that there is no evidence that Israel is trying to starve the population of the Gaza Strip. (224) It also accepts Israel’s position that “food insecurity” is not the same as “starvation”. (225) It finds that the civilian population has not been denied objects for its survival and notes that Israel has permitted the passage of required items as well as humanitarian aid. (226) The Turkel Report therefore concludes that there is no breach of Paragraph 102(a) of the San Remo Manual. (227) As regards Paragraph 102(b) of the San Remo Manual and whether the damage to the civilian population is excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated from the naval blockade, the Turkel Report accepts that it is difficult to assess the humanitarian repercussions of the naval blockade when it is examined separately to the Closure Policy that has been enforced since September 2007. (228) It notes that as there was no Gazan port, there had been limited maritime trade via the Gaza Strip, and there are no records to refer to. (229) It also notes that when humanitarian aid arrives by vessel, it is diverted to the Israeli port at Ashdod whereupon it is subjected to the Closure Policy. (230) The Turkel Report also notes that Israeli caselaw supports the finding that Israel has complied with its obligations under Paragraphs 102(a) and 103 of the San Remo Manual. (231) Finally, the Turkel Report refers to an International Committee of the Red Cross (hereinafter ICRC) report which suggests that medical supply stocks are low because of disagreement between Palestinian authorities, and not because of Israel’s non-compliance with Paragraph 104 of the San Remo Manual. (232)

 

[montelatici]

As I said, I prefer to use neutral sources.

 

[rylah]

As I said, I prefer to use neutral sources.

Which one of the presented above is biased?

How exactly can You show that?

Is using a jewish-Israeli paper valid enough to criticize Israel but not valid to
support its' side?

 

[montelatici]

I have never questioned the legality of the blockade. The Spanish legal analysis concerned the illegal boarding in International waters.

 

[Roudy]

So the assholes operating the Flottila should have complied with the legal blockade. Here comes another bitchslap....

 

[Phoenall]

Turkish warships will escort aid vessels to Gaza: Erdogan

"From now on, we will not let these ships to be attacked by Israel, as what happened with the Freedom Flotilla," Erdogan said.

A declaration of war that will result in the Turkish vessels being sank

You underestimate the Turkish military.

Warrior - Military History Forums Video News - Scout Front Page

No you underestimate International law and the UN if Turkey sets out in a belligerent manner. Expect the US and EU to station warships in the Med and of the coast of turkey.

Doubtful, Turkey is a member of NATO, If Turkey is attacked on the high seas while protecting shipping I suspect Article 5 of the Treaty would be invoked.

Article 5. The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security."

Problem with your English again freddy boy, since when has the M.E. been in Europe or North America.

And if Turkey becomes aggressive against a sovereign nation acting under maritime law the World will step up to the plate. Expect it to be a toothless threat

 

[Phoenall]

Suggestion dont run blockades. Problem solved.

Don't have blockade. Problem solved.

Don't have the violence and war and the blockade will be lifted. Problem solved

 

[Phoenall]

I have never questioned the legality of the blockade. The Spanish legal analysis concerned the illegal boarding in International waters.

Which is not the case, the vessels where suspected of carrying contraband and so came under maritime law.

 

[Phoenall]

A declaration of war that will result in the Turkish vessels being sank

You underestimate the Turkish military.

Warrior - Military History Forums Video News - Scout Front Page

No you underestimate International law and the UN if Turkey sets out in a belligerent manner. Expect the US and EU to station warships in the Med and of the coast of turkey.

Doubtful, Turkey is a member of NATO, If Turkey is attacked on the high seas while protecting shipping I suspect Article 5 of the Treaty would be invoked.

Article 5. The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security."

This is not about members attacking one another. Besides, Turkey won't break the law unless they want to be sunk.

Israel is not a member of NATO.

Exactly and so Turkey is bound to fail.

 

[Phoenall]

Using analysis compiled by belligerents is un helpful. US/UK/Israel/Palestinian and most Muslim sources will not be reliable. Here is a Spanish analysis and Spain has a long history with respect to the law of the sea.


"the actions committed by the Israeli Armed Forces when seizing foreign-flagged ships on international waters ... and when causing the death of some of its passengers, do clearly violate the International Law ... No State whatsoever can arrogate faculties for restricting the freedom of movement of any ship on international waters, much less for storming foreign-flagged ships, exception made of the few exceptions authorized by the International Law (piracy, slave trade, suspicions of fake identifications, etc.). Thus, it is not legitimate to resort to the Maritime War Law concepts of a blocked zone or blocked port, when such a war is inexistent ... In 1988 it was agreed ... the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA) that ... typifies as a crime taking control of a ship by force, or exerting violence over shipped persons, for whatever private or public reason, for whatever economic or terrorist interests.... Israel recently ratified this Convention (it entered into force for Israel on April 2009) ... SUA Article 6.1 establishes as the forceful jurisdiction for sanctioning the illicit actions the same country whose flag carries the ship on which or against which the forceful action has been taken..."

Un il cito internacional Edici n impresa EL PA S

piracy, slave trade, suspicions of fake identifications, etc just about covers it and it shows that Spain was not being totally unbiased in its summation

 

[Phoenall]

Don't want a blockade don't launch attacks into someone else's backyard.

Palestinians launch rockets into their own towns that they were expelled from in 1948.

That was stupid.

And correct.

Najd Gaza - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You mean FORMER towns.

Whatever. It is legal to run settlers off your land.

So it is legal for Israel to run the arab muslim settlers off their lands in gaza and the west bank

 

[Phoenall]

I have never questioned the legality of the blockade. The Spanish legal analysis concerned the illegal boarding in International waters.

If the blockade was deemed legal then the interception of vessels attempting to break the blockade was also legal. Work it out freddy boy and stop letting your Nazi Jew hatred clouding your ntelligence

 

[Challenger]

Suggestion dont run blockades. Problem solved.

They were in international waters.

 

[Challenger]

Turkish warships will escort aid vessels to Gaza: Erdogan

"From now on, we will not let these ships to be attacked by Israel, as what happened with the Freedom Flotilla," Erdogan said.

A declaration of war that will result in the Turkish vessels being sank

You underestimate the Turkish military.

Warrior - Military History Forums Video News - Scout Front Page

No you underestimate International law and the UN if Turkey sets out in a belligerent manner. Expect the US and EU to station warships in the Med and of the coast of turkey.

Doubtful, Turkey is a member of NATO, If Turkey is attacked on the high seas while protecting shipping I suspect Article 5 of the Treaty would be invoked.

Article 5. The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security."

This is not about members attacking one another. Besides, Turkey won't break the law unless they want to be sunk.

It's about NATO not the UN, if Turkey is attacked it can call on NATO countries for assistance.

 

[Challenger]

Suggestion dont run blockades. Problem solved.

Don't have blockade. Problem solved.

Turkey has no say whatsoever if their should or should not be a blockade. There is one. Comply, or your ship will get boarded.

If it tries to break the blockade, not when it's outside the blockade zone in international waters.

 

[Challenger]

Gaza flotilla activists were shot in head at close range
Israel was tonight under pressure to allow an independent inquiry into its assault on the Gaza aid flotilla after autopsy results on the bodies of those killed, obtained by the Guardian, revealed they were peppered with 9mm bullets, many fired at close range.

Nine Turkish men on board the Mavi Marmara were shot a total of 30 times and five were killed by gunshot wounds to the head, according to the vice-chairman of the Turkish council of forensic medicine, which carried out the autopsies for the Turkish ministry of justice today.

The results revealed that a 60-year-old man, Ibrahim Bilgen, was shot four times in the temple, chest, hip and back. A 19-year-old, named as Fulkan Dogan, who also has US citizenship, was shot five times from less that 45cm, in the face, in the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back. Two other men were shot four times, and five of the victims were shot either in the back of the head or in the back, said Yalcin Buyuk, vice-chairman of the council of forensic medicine.

The findings emerged as more survivors gave their accounts of the raids. Ismail Patel, the chairman of Leicester-based pro-Palestinian group Friends of al-Aqsa, who returned to Britain today, told how he witnessed some of the fatal shootings and claimed that Israel had operated a "shoot to kill policy".

He calculated that during the bloodiest part of the assault, Israeli commandos shot one person every minute. One man was fatally shot in the back of the head just two feet in front him and another was shot once between the eyes. He added that as well as the fatally wounded, 48 others were suffering from gunshot wounds and six activists remained missing, suggesting the death toll may increase.
Gaza flotilla activists were shot in head at close range World news The Guardian

They probably shouldn't have attacked the Israeli soldiers and tried to kill them then,huh?

They were entitled to repel boarders.